Jon,
Thanks for your comments. However, I still tend to see the three genera of
interpretants involutionally. Are you saying that in the quotation in the
message to which I first responded that Peirce's writing that "Thirdness,
or Representation. . . results in a *trichotomy *giving rise to three
Jerry - I wonder if Peirce’s terms on the Interpretants are just about result
of his frequently exploring and using different terms, though I acknowledge he
does this.
There is an interesting paper by Brendan Lalor, Semiotics 114–1/2, 31-40, 1997
on The Classification of Peirce’s
Gary R., List:
GR: I note that you use the term 'determine' to express these relations
while in the Peirce quotation above Peirce writes "involving."
I use "determines" because that is what Peirce himself uses for the three
interpretants in EP 2:481 (1908)--"Hence it follows from the Definition
Jon,
Thank you for presenting the alignment of the Peirce's three different
terminological expressions of the three interpretants so succinctly, which
is also to say that I agree with you -- as opposed to that anonymous
reviewer -- that the "[explicit/ effective/ destinate interpretants] ought
be
List:
For the record (again), although the three interpretants are not a
trichotomy for sign classification, they do constitute a trichotomy in the
specific sense defined by Peirce as follows.
CSP: Taking any class in whose essential idea the predominant element is
Thirdness, or Representation,
